Laserfiche WebLink
■ •—iO.,-'-. T.-->• o J - >rmr-t <br />I of <br />nected <br />Lot 3 <br />Of <br />of <br />nance <br />area <br />M=.„ oa ^oin Lot 4, but not Lot 3, to Jerome Heinan on <br />May 29, 1980, thereby separating the parcels for the first time <br />since 1920 and thereby making both Lot 3 and Lot 4 substandard and <br />deficient in regards to zoning requirements as enumerated above. <br />23. Lorge applied on August 29, 1980 for a lot width <br />variance for Lot 3, but not for any other variances, stating as <br />a hardship that there was "no adjacent land available". <br />24. Prior to the Lorge sale of Lot 4 on May 29, 1980, <br />there was adjacent land available to Lot 3 in the form of Lot 4 <br />which historically had been owned in common with Lot 3. <br />.... Denial of the subject variances would not constitute <br />a taking of property or loss of substantial value because Lot 3 has <br />always had value and been used as required area and yard space for the residence on Lot 4. j t' »■ <br />r«4. “j u hardship resulting from the separate ownership of <br />Lot 3 has been caused by the applicant's sale of adjacent Lot 4 <br />eight years after common ownership by the applicant of both lots and <br />thirteen years after the adoption of the applicable minimum zoning requirements. ^ <br />development of Lot 3 for residential purposes as <br />proposed by Lorge would add to the existing drainage problems for <br />the properties in the area, including Lot 4, previously owned by Lorge. ^ <br />28. The granting of the variances would be adverse to the <br />state promulgated low density shorelands development policy, Minn, <br />btat. §105.485, Subd. 1, which calls for a minimum lot width of 75 <br />feet on a General Development or Recreational Development Lake such <br />as Lake Minnetonka. <br />29. Section 31.202 of the Zoning Code provides for <br />development of lots of record held in separate ownership since <br />the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided the <br />lot of record meets 80% of the required lot width. Lot 3 does not <br />Section because it is only 60% of the reauired lot <br />because it was in common ownership with Lot 4 between 1967 and 1980. <br />30. The City Council has always required that when two or <br />more lots are owned in common, each lot must individually meet or <br />exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots <br />can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in <br />common must bo combined so that the resulting combined lot meets <br />the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. <br />Page 4 of €